Beavah

Da problem 'round these parts, Papadaddy, is da partisan primary system and da district gerrymandering. It's not the fault of da people, who are not sheep. It's a setup that's hard to work around, eh? Da primaries pick folks too far from center, and da gerrymandering acts as a multiplier of that effect. Darn hard thing to change, since whoever holds a majority is beholden to da party system and feels great bein' da one who gets to do da gerrymandering. Beavah

MSNBC and da Beavah to the contrary. Yah, this is just fascinatin' to me. My dad started teachin' me to shoot when I was 9. .22s, also a .25 pistol. Was pheasant and duck huntin' with a 20 gauge by age 11. These days I don't get out much, but still do just fine skeet and sporting clays and on da range. I've said here repeatedly that I have long been a proponent of "shall issue" laws. For da folks who don't know, "shall issue" laws require authorities to issue CCW permits to anyone on a timely basis unless they can clearly establish legal reasons not to. CCW makes no sense for me personally, as I have to spend too much of my time in gun-free zones, but I don't mind it. Have had some fun shootin' semi-auto "assault rifles". And a few with mods. Fun, but not my thing. I'm more an old traditionalist. But if anyone suggest that perhaps we should be a bit thoughtful about da claims we make or how we approach our personal responsibilities as gun owners, it means that he must be an MSNBC liberal who is afraid of guns. Da suggestion that folks who are stockpilin' guns for fear of imminent economic collapse probably aren't stable enough to carry must mean that da fellow is out to ban guns from responsible hobbyists no matter how many times he says otherwise. Even though his very first post on da CT debacle started off with how no gun restrictions would likely have helped. Yeh know you're a nutter when yeh can't even tell who your friends are anymore. But keep it up. Yeh are startin' to convince me that until folks start showin' a bit better judgment and personal responsibility, broader public restrictions might be necessary. Plus now I gotta tell a bunch of BSA commissioners that they have to keep an eye out for scouters who don't have da judgment necessary to know when to leave their gun at home. Bad enough dealin' with da other nitwits who can't go an evening in da woods without a bottle. Beavah

Actually Beavah, we are Actually, JMHawkins you're not. Yeh see, in America we have this thing called democracy, eh? We elect public officials, we authorize da formation of local governments, we set da parameters for collective action. Authority comes not from any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides it's his duty. It comes from a system of laws which allow da people to authorize actions on their behalf, includin' for da collective defense. So despite my good intentions and my belief in da responsibility of citizens, I can't rush in and try to perform surgery when I think some fellow needs it. My fellow citizens have decided that I shouldn't. If yeh wanna be a cop, get off your bum and go through da screening and training and internship period to become a cop. Live up to da standards and expectations your fellow citizens set for that kind of behavior, and stop makin' cockamamie excuses. If yeh wanna be a soldier and defend your neighbors in times of natural disaster or whatnot, get off your duff and go join da Guard. Train with others, be responsible to a command structure authorized by your fellow citizens, like da colonial militias, and stop pretendin' that da intent of da Constitution or da history of da country was to authorize lone vigilantes. It never was. If yeh wanna be a firearms hobbyist, be that, eh? Be careful. Have fun. But don't pretend you're somethin' that you're not. Actually, I think the more relevant First Aid analogy would be EpiPens. Actually, it would not. Like AEDs, EpiPens are carefully designed to be relatively fool-proof. They're designed to be used by untrained individuals in mental and physical distress. Da limited dosage of medication and delivery method makes it highly unlikely that yeh can do harm to otherwise healthy individuals. That's not true of some fellow with a firearm. It's far from fool-proof. It isn't designed to be used by someone in mental or physical distress, or in a situation for which they have little preparation or training. Da dosage is not limited, da delivery method makes it very possible to harm not just one but many healthy individuals. That's why that analogy fails. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I have to admit I haven't seen a more ham-handed approach to a PR event since Greg Shields at da BSA Jamboree in 2005. Not sure what da fellow was thinkin', but he did himself and his cause nuthin' but harm. I think we're startin' to see a complete meltdown in da extreme right. They've started to believe their own lobbyin' rhetoric or somethin'. Now they can't even bring themselves to negotiate in good faith or seek reasonable compromise. Everybody else is evil. Can't compromise with evil. Da opposition isn't evil. They're fellow citizens with slightly different viewpoints. People aren't sheep, and don't need sheepdogs. If they don't snap out of it soon, this will end badly for da whole conservative movement. Beavah

Yah, I'm just in awe of da House Republicans, eh? Boehner for reasons that were just baffling tried to call a vote on a go-nowhere bill. And then he couldn't even get da votes for his own bill! So to cap it off, he sent everyone off on Christmas holiday while da President and Senate were cancelling their holiday plans to try to get work done. That pretty much sinks it, eh? Unless President Obama does his preemptive surrender thing, which would be both politically and economically foolish, da House Republicans are takin' us over da cliff. What a hoot. Da interesting question after that is whether da voters tossed enough of these nitwits to avoid them takin' da country into default when da debt limit comes up again next year. Beavah

Yah, chaoman45, I had a friend who once computed out da amount of time, energy, and job classifications and such it took to run an ordinary scout troop. He was a business consultant who liked that stuff. I think it came out to be da equivalent of running a $300K a year business. Some of da more active troops around would probably chalk up lots higher numbers. I don't have any problem with folks who are dedicated. Scoutin' would not exist but for its "full time" leaders. Every strong unit has at least one, often more than one. Plus a whole bunch of part-timers. But yah, there is a point where a fun volunteer effort turns into a too-serious job. Yeh do see that in Scoutin'. Happens a lot with folks whose work life doesn't give full scope to their talents, so Scoutin' becomes da place they seek fulfillment. It becomes da same thing as da workaholic. There have been any number of times over da years I've had to pull scouters aside and tell 'em it was time to take a break and go attend to other things, like marriage. Also a couple times where I recognized it was time for me to take a break. Beavah

Before we retreat from the rates that kicked off the enormous 2 decade growth spurt, how about we return to federal government spending as a percentage of GDP from that era? Yah, hmmmm.... we sorta had a 1-decade growth spurt in the 1990s with a higher tax rate. We had whiplash in da last decade, not a growth spurt. I'm generally in favor of limiting federal revenues and expenses to a fixed percentage of GDP, at least as a matter of principle. Do yeh realize that your proposal requires repealing Medicare prescription drug coverage completely? That was da entitlement boondoggle of da all-Republican government that led to part of that "precipitous" increase in spendin' yeh mention. We'd be running a surplus right now if 2004 budget plus inflation had been continued to today LOL. Yeh also would have required massive cuts in Medicare, Social Security, Veteran's benefits, and defense, which have all grown faster than inflation. federal revenues INCREASED after Bush repealed the Clinton tax increases False. Da federal revenues declined dramatically after da GWB tax cuts. As yeh would expect from, you know, arithmetic. As for da rest, I'm a conservative. I'm sympathetic to da principles of some of what yeh say. I think as a conservative, though, we have an obligation to be thoughtful, balanced, and honest. Yeh need to find some different news outlets that give yeh a more balanced perspective so that yeh aren't fooled by folks from one particular lobbyin' group. Beavah

Let's try again. By your logic, none of us should bother training in CPR or using AEDs since we're not EMTs or MDs. None of us should bother carrying a tow strap or jumper cables since we're not professional mechanics. False. That is not my logic. Using a firearm in an emergent situation in defense of self or others raises substantial risk of death or serious injury to others, particularly in the hands of anyone who does not maintain proficiency or does not demonstrate adequate understanding of relative risks. That is not true of CPR, AEDs, tow straps, or jumper cables. So if you want to make a medical analogy, the proper medical analogy is a comparison to a medical intervention which may be lifesaving but may also cause death or serious injury if not used correctly. Like a lay person carrying and administering intravenous clot busting drugs. Hobbyists and CCW holders are much more likely to be proficient with firearms than the average LEO. You realize most municipalities have very limited firearm practice and qualification programs? Well, let's just say that some hobbyists are more proficient in hitting targets. I'm talkin' more about proficiency in knowin' when and how use of force is appropriate in a complex environment, how to avoid usin' force by employin' other techniques, etc. Da CCW crowd does not have the same skill set as law enforcement in that regard. I find it ... interesting ... Yah, HICO, easy there. You're jumpin' da shark a fair bit. First off, I'm not in favor of changin' da BSA membership policy. Secondly, at least in Texas, CCW holders are somewhat more likely to be sexual predators of youth than non-CCW holders. Of course, that has nuthin' to do with da CCW permit and everything to do with other demographics, but still. Third, I don't reckon anybody is in favor of inexperienced, untrained leaders. Did I miss something? Yep. See above. Da point was that an analogy to first aid kits and AEDs that you and others made is wrong. Da proper analogy is to IV meds. Da risk metric was also wrong. Da odds of needin' a firearm for protection on a scout outing are comparable to da odds of needin' to treat a heart attack in a youth member. Possible, but ridiculous. Remember who you're talking to here. I thought I was talkin' to sane, stable folks until people kept sayin' they needed a high power rifle to go salmon fishing, that they couldn't sleep on outings out of fear for the kids, that America was more dangerous than ever, that they needed to spend more time with their gun than with their wife and family, that they had to carry every day in order to protect themselves and others from da rioters in da next natural disaster. Yah, that's it! As I've said repeatedly, I'm a gun owner and a hunter. I personally have been in favor of "shall issue" laws with respect to CCW. My baseline is trust in da sensibilities of my fellow citizens, includin' scouters, until they demonstrate by word or action that they can't handle it. But we must be honest with ourselves and others. Da woman whose gun was used to shoot first graders last week bought it because she feared imminent economic collapse. That's not rational, and irrational folks shouldn't have high velocity rifles with large magazines and frangible rounds. Yeh take away a drunk's car keys, and yeh take away an irrational person's right to bear arms. Believin' that yeh need to carry for protection on a scout outing, or to da local grocer also ain't rational. Yeh don't need to carry for protection in those environments. Yeh might want to carry for fun, for fashion, for a political statement, to attract women, whatever. That's perfectly rational, and I support your right to do so. Mine too! But when yeh start talkin' nuts about safety and protection, it's time for someone to take away da keys. Or, if you're really serious about actin' in place of law enforcement until they arrive, then get and maintain training as a LEO da same way lots of us get training as EMTs or medics. Beavah

I find it quite comical to have charges of paranoia and ridicule coming from a bunch of people who are irrationally afraid of a group of people that has the safest demographics in the nation. Nobody's afraid of da group, eh? I am a touch concerned about a subset of da group that seems to be overly fearful of other stuff. As I've mentioned and cited, da "group" does not necessarily have the safest demographics in the nation. From da Texas records, CCW permit holders are more likely than others to commit sexual assaults (includin' molesting children), and more likely to commit violent crimes that involve firearms. Some of that is demographics unrelated to gettin' a permit. There's really no very good research on this stuff, eh? Da Ann Coulter citation from Eagledad mentions one study, but ignores a dozen others with different conclusions. Da consensus is it's all a muddle, which means the data don't support any conclusion. Given that, my own position is yeh let freedom reign. Democracy is built on trustin' its citizens in general. In specific, though, I don't think individuals who espouse or demonstrate poor judgment, poor risk assessment, or deeper mental defect in themselves or members of their family should carry, or perhaps even possess any form of ammunition. We trust citizens to drive cars, but not every citizen should drive a car. I know I took all da firearms and ammo from a friend of mine once who was goin' through a lot of stress and hard times. No different than I would take keys away from a friend who had too much to drink. Carryin' on scout outings is poor judgment as well. Beavah alleges a lot of deaths caused by accidental discharge this year. Citations please. Center for Disease Control, National Center for Vital Statistics, categories W32-W34. The first is that there are numerous stories of lives every month SAVED by citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights despite the inherent bias in most major media against reporting on this. I've no doubt that there are stories, eh? I could make one up right now. Now, how about a citation that establishes the implied claim that there are actual lives saved every month? Not just "there was a big scary man and I frightened him with my pistol," and not stories from da inherently biased professional gun lobby. Why do you bother training in CPR or Wilderness First Aid when the chances of having to use either are vanishingly small? And yet orders of magnitude higher than havin' need of a firearm. I've used Wilderness First Aid trainin' more times than I can count. Includin' da big bandages. Never had need of a firearm in da woods unless I was huntin'. How many times have any of you dug into and used the spare fuses located in your car's fuse box? Last month. Da fuse for da accessory outlets. Darned if I know why; I think it might have been some scouts tryin' to charge somethin' with my inverter. As has been said any number of times now, da comparison to first aid trainin' isn't accurate. Yeh can't harm someone through improper use of a gauze pad. A scout can't hurt someone else if he gets a hold of your SAM splint. Da comparison yeh want is to carrying intravenous medications or other serious meds, where improper use can seriously harm someone, as well as save 'em. In da medical world, that requires extensive training and licensure, and comes with increased regulation, supervision, and liability. That's da proper group to compare carryin' firearms for protection to. Beavah

They informed me that I could not wear the hat, and only read the story to myself; NO holiday clothing or allusions are allowed. Yah, this is where yeh hope and expect that da kids and teachers all decide together to come to school wearin' da most festive holiday clothing for their tradition that they can find. And then call da national media if anyone makes a stink. If anything, a jolly old elf is promotin' secular paganism, eh? But it's still fun. And the poem is a popular work of literature, which can of course be taught as seasonal American literature. No different than readin' Lincoln's Thanksgiving proclamation last month. Me personally, I'd fire da administrators who made such a rule. Lack of common sense good judgment means yeh shouldn't be runnin' a school. Beavah

"Early that year someone was killed by a grizzly." Yah, hmmm... Early this year lots of someones died from accidental discharge of a firearm. Are yeh sure yeh really want to make a claim that decisions should be made on da basis of isolated, low-probability incidents that had a high likelihood of "user error"? That sword cuts mighty well da other way. Early that year I bet a whole bunch of someones died of cardiac arrest. Are yeh carryin' an AED? That would be far more effective at savin' lives, IF that's what yeh really cared about. Again, I'm just fine with responsible, intelligent, proficient firearms enthusiasts carryin' (and of course they can carry in da National Parks now, thanks to President Obama). I often carry a fly rod as a hobby in da mountains. To each his own. What yeh all are makin' me increasingly uncomfortable about is fearful, slightly irrational gun owners carryin'. Folks who genuinely believe risks which are out of whack with da actual danger. For me, that shows they lack da judgment and mental balance required to carry responsibly, eh? They're goin' to be more likely to brandish in situations which don't require it, because their sense for risk is poor. Folks like that shouldn't carry, for everyone's sake. Just like this mom in CT, eh? If yeh want a Bushmaster .223 because it's a fun rifle to take to da range as a hobby, more power to yeh. It is a fun rifle to take to da range. If yeh must have a Bushmaster .223 with frangible rounds in high capacity magazines because yeh fear da imminent economic collapse of da nation, then yeh shouldn't be allowed to have one. So if it's just a hobby, then yeh can leave it behind at home when yeh go on da scout outing. If yeh honestly feel a need to have a gun for "safety" on a scout outing, then yeh shouldn't be allowed to come. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nope, yeh missed da point again. This isn't an all-or-nuthin' proposition. The ability to carry responsibly means that yeh have to be able to make decisions in ambiguous circumstances based on relative levels of training and risk. If yeh can't make those shaded decisions, then yeh shouldn't be allowed to carry. If yeh get and maintain professional certification as an EMT, then yeh naturally have a broader scope of practice. If yeh get and maintain professional certification as an EMT-Paramedic, then yeh have a broader scope of practice still, includin' quite a range of intravenous drugs and other more aggressive medical interventions. Yeh are also subject to a much broader range of regulation, as well as professional liability. If yeh get and maintain professional credentials as a LEO, then I don't reckon anybody has a problem with yeh carryin' firearms for which yeh are trained and proficient. Even G2SS is OK with it. Yeh also are subject to a much broader range of regulations, as well as professional liability. What some folks seem to be suggestin' is that da average civilian first aider should be carryin' IV clot-buster drugs just in case da 12 year olds they're with in da woods suffer an M.I. That's neither prudent nor rational. If yeh are a first aider, yeh respond with improvised gear and bandaids, eh? Same if yeh are a civilian at a crime scene. If yeh are a wannabe Paramedic who wants to carry around professional gear whose use in da wrong circumstances could be dangerous, then get and maintain a Paramedic certification and accept da regulation that comes with it. If yeh are are a gun hobbyist who just likes to carry as a hobby, and yeh are rational, mentally stable, and maintain proficiency, carry away. If yeh are a wannabe cop who sees yourself as bein' da first line of defense against da vast criminal element and therefore "need" to carry professional gear whose use in da wrong circumstances could be dangerous, then get and maintain training as a LEO and accept da regulation that comes with it. Yep, we do allow civilians to use AEDs - devices carefully designed through years of research to be relatively fool proof, which will refuse to fire in any but da right conditions. If yeh have a firearm which has been carefully designed and tested to be used by any inexperienced civilian and will only fire when it was absolutely necessary to do so, we can have that conversation. When a Bushmaster .223 is as safe in untrained hands as a commercial fire extinguisher, we can have that conversation. In da mean time, if yeh can't wrap your brain around da notion that it's just a hobby and that you're not a reserve police officer defendin' da America that's da safest it's been from imminent collapse and criminal hordes, please do the rest of us who favor gun rights a favor and leave your gun properly secured at home. It's far more likely that you'll run into an adult havin' a heart attack in da woods than a homicidal maniac, so if yeh really want to be prepared yeh should buy an AED to carry instead of a 9mm. Beavah

If that be true, shouldn't the citizens be given the same level of protection afforded the police for self-defense? Nah, that logic doesn't follow at all. It's like sayin' that EMS or fire can't be everywhere within a limited time ("blind spots"), so da civilians should all carry intravenous drugs and powered extraction equipment (jaws of life), with red and blue flashers and sirens on their private cars "just in case" they have to transport da injured themselves to da hospital within the golden hour. And that scenario is far more likely than needin' to respond with firepower to a crime in progress. Beavah

Salmon fishing in Alaska, sombody better have your back with a high powered rifle. Heck even the occasional Seabase captain keeps a pistol (in case of pirates). Oh fer cryin' out loud! Seabase ain't operatin' anywhere near pirate waters, and a pistol in a pirate raid is like bringin' a swiss army knife to a gun fight. It's just goin' to get yeh killed. People who are that stupid shouldn't be allowed to carry. For da record, yeh definitely do not need a high powered rifle to go salmon fishing in Alaska (unless you're usin' da rifle to shoot fish, which might be sorta fun in a redneck holiday sort of way ) Nor does anyone have any need to pack heat hikin' da trails in Glacier NP. Sheesh. Why would I need or want a gun lock? If its locked it won't do you any good when you need it. Because if yeh have it around a bunch of teenage boys, it's an attractive nuisance. When campin' yeh do go to sleep, eh? And there's lots of other times where yeh might need to set your firearm aside for a bit while yeh worked on somethin' and it might be unattended. Better would just be to follow G2SS and leave it at home unless there's a very good reason not to. A reason that amounts to a bit more than "because I can." (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah, ya just like arguing. Yah, sure, it's why I'm in da field I'm in. And an exec with an eight figure income would be at the 35% (39% after the cliff) tax rate. He could only achieve a rate around 17% if it was mostly from capital gains. Yeh do realize that executive compensation is put together as a package, right? A package where typically direct compensation is a fraction of da total compensation, most of which is in options, retirement contributions, and other investment vehicles. And of course company perqs so yeh don't have da same expenses for buyin' you own car as da engineer who actually designs da products yeh sell. Add in access to other financial vehicles and legal advice that ordinary folks don't get, and I don't know a major firm CEO who pays more than 20%. In fact most would be embarrassed to be payin' 20%. You're right that executive compensation is just an exemplar of deeper ethical rot at da board of director and financial services level. It's a symptom, and perhaps a contributin' factor, but it's not da cause or da major player. For da major players, all yeh need to do is look at da roots of the last crash, and almost any capital firm that's makin' more than 10% annualized. For a healthy economy, yeh need a fairly compensated, economically active broad middle class in order to generate demand. Da concentration of capital in a small number of hands, with incentives for paper production of wealth rather than actual manufacturing of goods and services, is a recipe for long-term economic weakness and social unrest. There's nuthin' new about that, eh? Da conservative position has always been that there is an obligation to treat workers well. When that breaks down, though, yeh get a natural response of muscular unionism and governmental intervention which tends to be anti-capitalist. Just raisin' taxes on da 1% is an admittedly poorly thought out solution. Now, ordinarily some of this is dealt with by a crash, eh? Da pattern in crashes is that capital gets wiped out, which tends to level da playing field a bit. Da poor default on their loans (small loss for them). Da leveraged financier gets wiped out. It also teaches folks some humility. Da problem in da last crash is that we bailed 'em all out, with no penalty and no prosecution. So we created a massive wealth transfer from da worker to the financier on top of da general trend of capital to accumulate. It's no wonder that almost a half of our population of fellow citizens doesn't have da wherewithal to pay even a modest tax, while corporations are makin' record profits. That is a real problem, eh? But it ain't a problem with da tax code. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, noname, but da question still remains. Why do yeh feel yeh need to have a cop with you 24/7? Unless you're a celebrity of some sort, or a high-profile public official like the POTUS, da notion that yeh need a 24/7 armed law enforcement body guard most of us would consider delusional. Again, I've long been an advocate of "shall issue" CCW laws and have no problem with mentally stable, well-trained, responsible citizens carryin'. But these threads here have made me question that, to be honest. Feelin' a need for 24/7 armed protection in da woods or in suburban America doesn't pass the "mentally stable" test. It's fine as a hobby, eh? Somethin' you enjoy for personal reasons and if yeh blundered into da one in a million situation yeh might contribute thoughtfully. But to my mind it's not OK if it's somethin' yeh feel yeh need, or must have on a BSA campout because yeh can't sleep at night without it, or stockpile for fear of da imminent breakdown of society. That stuff ain't rational, and irrational folks should not be permitted to possess firearms. Beavah

The wilderness hasn't changed, so I assume its the citizenry that has. Yeh don't think da wilderness has changed in the last 100 years, DeanRx? Are yeh dippin' into da Rx medications? Da reason folks took guns into da wilderness back then was hostile natives and need to hunt for food. Both of those are gone now. Yeh should have left da bear cub alone, and things would have been fine. You aren't in da food chain of a black bear, eh? You're just a smelly monkey. All I'm hearin' is fear after irrational fear. Mostly I reckon it's folks who just like da hobby and are like kids with a video game. They don't recognize when it's not appropriate to carry. The rest, though, worry me a bit. Folks whose fears don't line up with da real risks I reckon are more likely to respond too aggressively in situations which require prudence and judgment. So I'm fine with average, responsible citizens carryin'. I'm less OK with folks who are fearful about impending economic collapse or invasions of armed folks fleein' a natural disaster or paranoia about da big bad wolf-critter in da woods possessin' weapons. Like as not, they'll be so focused on da coming global collapse that they won't mind their mentally disturbed son and will allow him access to a serious force multiplier causin' a tragedy. Anyways, as far as scout outings go, a firearm is like a video game. Leave it behind unless da purpose of da outing is to play with such things. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, AZMike, but law enforcement officers are paid by da rest of us to go seek out and arrest criminals, eh? Their needs for self defense are somewhat higher than me goin' to da grocery store. In fact, believin' that my need for self defense goin' to da grocer is da same as a LEO on the job is a sign of mental illness. As the evidence seems to show that more law-abiding civilians, on a monthly basis, use firearms (including "assault weapons" and high-capacity semi-automatic pistols) to prevent loss of life than to take life, would banning such weapons cause a greater loss of life than if such laws were not in place? How is that moral? Yah, yeh need to be careful about "evidence" like that, eh? It's very hard to do any genuine research on this stuff, and da topic is littered with crap lobbyist "research" on both sides. Even so, there are lots of ways what yeh suggest could be "moral", though I tend to think of it as a public policy question rather than in da black-and-white. A change could yield short-term problems but longer term improvement would be one example. Da reduction in access could lead to economic changes that benefited families and da nation as spending shifted from guns and ammo to more productive and sustainable family investments. Maybe if folks have da money for an extra family vacation a year to reconnect with their kids, their kids won't be takin' da family arsenal to school to blow away their peers in a disaffected funk. It's just a practical public policy question with lots of variables, eh? Not a black-and-white moral one. Beavah

Then you would have very uncomfortable with the citizen soldier back in 1776 when the soldier was a farmer Da soldier was a farmer who was part of a civic militia that trained together and had a command structure, eh? Often with a commissioned officer corps. Remote possibility? Who's to say. Your opinion against theirs, your comfort against theirs. Yah, sorry, whether we're talkin' da proper treatment for cancer or da objective evaluation of risk, not all opinions are created equal. This stuff is not a matter of personal opinion any more than treatin' cancer with crystals is. Yep there's folks that believe we're all goin' to be gone when da world ends tomorrow. That's their opinion. Be prepared and all that. Yep, if they really believe that enough to act on it then they have a form of mental illness. Ain't a matter of my opinion against theirs. Da risks and probabilities are quantifiable. Worryin' about armed bands of men in a natural disaster in da white suburban neighborhoods where folks are carryin' and stockpilin' assault weapons is da same sort of thing. Stop your whining, put your damn guns away and help da rest of us run the shelters and first aid stations. Yeh can go back to your hobby when the work is done. I'll even join yeh. Beavah

So then yeh agree that not everyone who says da wealthy aren't payin' their fair share are green with envy? As with anything, da silly 47% thing merits diggin' a bit deeper, eh? We all know a big chunk of that was caused by da Bush tax cuts, which should be phased out across the board. But dig a bit further and yeh realize that if da corporations and individuals makin' record profits were to increase da general pay of their workers at 1/10th the rate they've been increasin' da compensation of executives who lead companies to bankruptcy, then there wouldn't be any issue, eh? They'd be payin' plenty of tax. We could make a flat tax work quite well. Yeh see, I spend more time than I'd like with various business execs, eh? I'm not convinced that very many of 'em merit their current compensation. Who is really addin' value to a computer company? Da exec, or da engineers down in da R&D labs? Who is really addin' value to the clothier? Da board members or da designers and folks who are makin' and shippin' the clothes? Yah, sure there's a problem when the exec is payin' 17% on compensation in da 8 figures, da engineer is payin' 26% on compensation in da high 5 figures, and the workers aren't payin' anything. Some of that's da tax code. Most of that's a corrupt and ineffective corporate board that isn't doin' compensation fairly. Address da increasin' compensation foolishness and yeh won't have da tax disparity. For a healthy society without da state intervenin' too much, da private sector has to behave with ethics and honor on its own. Beavah

Not necessarily, but you're really startin' to move toward pretty low-probability hypotheticals, eh? I also reckon I'm not altogether comfortable with random folks of varied levels of trainin' comin' together without any chain of command structure to start firin' on strangers in their neighborhood durin' a natural disaster. I'd like to think most of us good citizens would be out welcomin' strangers in a natural disaster and settin' up aid stations, not barricades. Beavah

Yah, yeh have to read research in this area with a lot of skepticism, because it tends to be lobbyist research that's done poorly. One of da better studies done by public health officials was in Texas for an 8-year period. It showed that overall CCW permit holders had lower crime conviction rates than da rest of da population. However, that lower rate was driven by da burglary and robbery statistics, eh? CCW permit holders were much less likely to commit ordinary burglary or robbery. No surprise, that's a younger, poorer population that does that stuff, and there's a lot more burglary than more serious offenses. When yeh looked at more serious crimes - terror threats, sexual offenses, intentional killing, weapons offenses and deadly conduct - CCW permit holders were more likely than da general population to be convicted of such offenses. About 2.5 times as likely on average. Includin' sexual offenses against children. See http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300807 Now, that too should be taken with a grain of salt, even though it's done a bit better and comports with common sense. The data on these things doesn't lend itself to proper controls. Regardless, it's worth thinkin' and readin' through this stuff carefully. Especially if yeh see an argument that seems too one-sided. There's just too much special interest lobby obfuscation on this topic. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Anyone making a slight against people earning money that they don't pay their fare share are just showing the ugly green face of jealousy. So Warren Buffet is jealous of you and me, eh? Well ain't that somethin'! I reckon there's a certain amount of "those to whom much is given, much is expected" that applies. I know lots of well-off folks, and by any reasonable standard Mrs. Beavah and I live comfortably. Lots of 'em inherited their wealth, and so I'm not overly impressed with 'em. Pretendin' that they're "job creators" or that their wealth is earned is a bit of a lark. For da rest of us who did earn our own way, we didn't do that alone. We were beneficiaries of public infrastructure and da work of others to a greater or less degree. I benefited from an education, and continue to benefit from public infrastructure which strongly supports my profession. I benefit from GPS systems in my and Mrs. Beavah's cars and our phones; I benefit from da FAA and air traffic control more than most because of my hobby and doin' more travel. That's all public infrastructure that benefits me but not folks of limited means. I eat out more than average, I expect, so I also benefit more from health inspectors and regulators. On and on. So I'm just fine payin' more. I'm gettin' more service and benefits. Right now I don't think I'm payin' my fair share, so I dutifully dedicate a bigger chunk of income to charitable work. I don't reckon we older folks are payin' anywhere near our fair share for da benefits we're gettin' (or soon to get) from Medicare. Don't think I'm jealous, though. Just think those to whom much is given, much is expected. Beavah

Thats like justifying driving a Corvette instead of a Smart car. Some folks just like bigger and faster. Yah, I agree with this, eh? I'm not in favor of restrictin' other people's hobbies. I don't much care for quilting or see any pleasure in it, but it doesn't mean that I want quilting to be banned. As a general aviation pilot, I enjoy flyin' for business and recreation, and I don't much care for folks who say "you can just take an airline like everybody else." What's a might more disturbin' in all these threads, though, is that a fair number of folks aren't talkin' about firearms as a hobby, where they just enjoy huntin' or target shootin' or whatnot. They report carryin' out of fear - fear of economic collapse, of government takeover, of looters/invaders. It'd be like me claimin' I fly airplanes because I'm worried about needin' a quick getaway from evil men, or a dive-bomb platform to stave off da government agents. Nah, it's just a hobby. Yah, sure, our hobbies can sometimes perform a public service. I've volunteered to fly organs for organ donations or to take rural folks into urban hospitals for treatment. But when we're performin' a public service, we're doin' that workin' with others and da civilian authorities as part of a team, not workin' out of fear of da civilian authorities. Da other thing is that if I want to fly bigger aircraft, there are additional regulations, licensure classes, and proficiency requirements. More insurance, too. That seems reasonable to me. If I decide my hobby is suborbital space plane launches, I'd expect my fellow citizens to exercise a bit more oversight than if I'm just sightseein' in a Piper Cub. Within' da pilot and engineerin' communities, I'd also be expected to maintain higher proficiency and standards. So I reckon that perhaps it's OK for our fellow citizens to exercise a bit more oversight over high-velocity semiautomatics with a drum of frangible rounds than my Austin & Halleck muzzleloader, and within' da shootin' community da expectation should be that folks with more sophisticated rifles also demonstrate higher proficiency and standards. So I'd say some of da failures in CT are a woman who was a fearful soul worried about "economic collapse" rather than someone who was a genuine firearms hobbyist, who was possessin' stuff beyond her own experience or proficiency as demonstrated by not exercisin' proper care and storage around a son she knew to be mentally unstable. That's perhaps somethin' both da shootin' community and our fellow citizens have an interest in, eh? In da same way they'd have an interest in me buyin' a Russian MIG fighter jet in preparation for class warfare and leavin' it out for da local fellow who preaches Jihad against Capitalism on Fridays. Beavah

Not da point, JMHawkins. Point was that da folks were isolated invaders of another nation, which isn't the same thing. When you're in that position, yeh are organizin' your community for mutual defense, eh? Not imaginin' yeh have a need to defend yourself from your community. Da issue is one of honesty about da meaning and intent of da language, nuthin' more. Beavah